Emily Hench

How Conservative Evangelism in Politics Led to Trump’s Victory in the 2016 Presidential Election

Emily Hench

The 2016 Presidential election season proved itself to be quite the roller coaster ride. The two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have gone head to head on multiple occasions, both within debates as well as outside them. Scandals, callouts, and constant back-and-forth arguments on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook have allowed no shortage of news stories and clickbait headlines. Although I was unable to vote in this election, I consider this to be the first presidential election of which I was politically conscious, as well as the first in which I actively sought out discussion concerning this topic. Particularly, I have often thought about the Republican Party nominee, now President Donald Trump. Ever since that fateful day in June 2015, the entire world has witnessed as a wealthy reality star with no prior political experience and a less-than-clean moral ledger has gained enough support not only to receive the Republican nomination, but actually to win the race for the presidency. By no means are Republicans hesitant about his nomination after what normally would have been a close race in the primaries. Widespread support of Trump by Conservative Evangelicals swept the nation after he announced his run for president, and many of these supporters are easily distinguished from the average republican.

I wonder, however, if the “average Republican” exists. One would require a definition of this term, which might well be divided into sections, with fiscal conservatives in the north at least initially separated from the social (if not racial) interests of those in the south. This division can no doubt be argued. Trump supporters are often characterized as radical, uneducated Republicans who have thrown their support behind the man who “says it like it is.” I have often found myself asking a simple, yet exponentially complicated question: Why has Trump, despite his extremely radical and occasionally unconstitutional views, gained so much support? I have constantly tried to understand how Trump’s ideals could have possibly lined up with the likes of Evangelical Christians. The term “evangelical” in particular has been thrown around by articles and news stories to describe the set of far-right Conservatives whose main reasons for supporting a candidate often have ties back to the stereotypical “God and guns” mentality. Yet the same word is used to describe an entire section of Christianity. Although I do think it is unfair that this word is used so loosely, especially during this most recent political season, I also believe that the recent utilization of the term in a derogatory manner is an interesting matter. For starters, as with any term that is adapted to a particular group, it is partial: obviously only the loud, far-right side of the spectrum is associated with the term. However, the appropriation of the word “evangelical” in this radicalized form has disclosed countless divides within the Evangelical community. Mainly, these conflicts seem to be over social ideals and political views, not theology. When I looked into this, I discovered that, in the 1960’s, the Republican Party had taken a sharp turn to the right, with an increased influx of active Christian voters into the party, mainly caused by major members of the Conservative party beginning to pander towards Christians in order to win elections. This has led me to conclude that the increased pandering of the Conservative Party towards Evangelical Christians in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s has led to the continuing exploitation of Evangelicals and their beliefs as a means to gain political power, as well as directly causing Donald Trump’s success in the 2016 election.

The term “Evangelical” is one that has been heard many times throughout the 2016 election season. Most often, it is used to describe members of the Republican Party whose political views are derived from a particular segment of the Christian faith. “Those who identify themselves as “bornagain or evangelical” Christians constitute a sizable share of the electorate – 36% of registered voters, compared with 37% who are non-evangelical Christians and 27% who identify with non-Christian faiths or with no religion at all. In addition, evangelicals are much more numerous within the Republican Party than among Democrats” (“Exit” 6). The term “evangelical” has recently been used as derogatory term rather than a merely descriptive one. However, the word in this context cannot be applied to all who identify as an Evangelical, as it still has its roots, as well as its origin, in Christianity. The Evangelical denomination has origins dating back to the 18th century. “In general throughout the 18th and on to the 19th century, the whole of the English-speaking world is moving away from traditional religion defined by respect for authority, respect for the past, respect for the tradition, and moving toward a more individualistic, pragmatic, and practical practice of Christianity” (16). The lack of a religious entity with direct ties to the state and federal governments in the US allowed for the Evangelical move

ment to flourish (17).

This does, however, create a blurred area as to the definition of the Evangelical between the denomination and its beliefs and the people who align themselves within it. The church’s lack of a solidified image has led to a reliance on marketing their faith to others in an attempt to recruit new members. The focus on advertising has the side effect of disconnecting the advertiser from the society it is attempting to evangelize, thus exposing a sizeable flaw in this system. Perhaps this lack of connectivity to society is what has drawn some evangelicals to the extremes of the Republican Party. “Many poor people in America undermine their economic interests by voting for Republican politicians who are interested in further concentrating wealth in the hands of the affluent. They do so, in part, because the Republicans appeal to their religious propensity” (Barber 15). Many conservative Christians feel that their faith is becoming insignificant. “A growing share of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, including some who self-identify as atheists or agnostics as well as many who describe their religion as “nothing in particular.” Altogether, the religiously unaffiliated . . . . now account for 23% of the adult population, up from 16% in 2007” (“U.S.” 5). With every passing year, churches are beginning to feel more and more estranged from the political powers that seem to try and undermine them at every step. Thus, many Christians have flocked to far right politicians in order to try and revitalize their faith’s validity through lawmakers that share their beliefs, even if their overall policies do not align in their favor.

The Republican Party, often referred to as the Conservative Party or the Grand Old Party (abbreviated as GOP) emerged in 1854 from the Whig Party as a group opposed to the continuation of slavery (“Republican” 8). However, by the early 1900’s, views within the party began to shift. ”By the late 1950s conservatives had established a strong base of support in the growing southwest. For much of the century wealthy easterners had controlled the Republican Party, but in the postwar years a growing number of businessmen and political leaders from the Sunbelt, many of whom had prospered in the postwar industrial boom, began playing a greater role in national politics” (Dallek 8). In the late 50’s and early 60’s, two distinct groups emerged from the Conservative Party. There were the moderate Republicans, whose policies shared many similarities with Democratic policies, and the radical right, whose beliefs and policies aligned with what we see in the Conservative Evangelicals of the 2016 election. The emergence of the radical right, also referred to as the religious right, has had a heavy hand in politics ever since they emerged within the political scene.

One of the most influential political events leading to the rise of the religious right was the 1964 election in which Lyndon B Johnson, the democratic nominee, was opposed by Barry Goldwater, the republican nominee. Johnson won the election by a landslide, winning 486 out of the 538 political votes. “But whereas liberals saw the election results as the final repudiation of the American right, conservatives took solace in Goldwater’s 27 million votes and vowed not to repeat their mistakes” (28). Even though Goldwater ultimately ended up losing the election, his supporters continued to remain loyal to his policies and beliefs. “Goldwater was charismatic, unapologetically conservative, and unambiguously guided by principle. For him, principle, not power, was the core of politics. Such a personality proved successful in bringing the South and the West, and the young and the energetic, into the GOP and the conservative movement for the first time” (38).

One of the most widely talked about issues within the far right sphere has been reproductive rights, specifically the right to have a legal abortion. Abortion is a topic that continues to pop up time and time again in congress as well as amongst voters, yet the two sides of this issue seem to be at an impasse. Generally, the Republican Party is seen as the Pro-Life party, while the Democratic Party normally takes the pro-Choice side. These positions mainly concern abortion specifically, with other matters involving reproductive rights being brushed to the side. In the modern day, we have seen these two perspectives clash again and again, with little to no progression on abortion law. Although a hot topic on the debate stage in recent years, reproductive rights used to be a simpler, quieter matter that never drew too much attention. “. . . As recently as the 1970s, views on abortion didn’t break down along party lines. As a number of academic studies have pointed out, abortion has been transformed from an incidental political issue to a core litmus test over the past 30 years” (Kliff 1). For quite a while, there was no concern over the topic of abortion in congress. Even today, it is a topic at the fringes of the political spectrum when compared to other, more pertinent topics, as “…most Americans don’t view the issue as a priority to debate in this or any other election. It is an obsession at the edges of politics, but it is the passion of the edges that controls U.S. public life.” (Fineman, 14). One of the only reasons this issue is brought up so much in today’s political scene is due to the media’s emphasis on events surrounding Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice conflict. Before the 1970’s, abortion received little attention from both politics and the media. Abortion is still a highly contested issue to this day, and whether it will be resolved soon is unclear. “Anti-abortion Republicans — which is to say nearly all Republicans — want to score points with their own supporters by trying to cut off government funding for Planned Parenthood, and GOP presidential candidates will be at the forefront of doing so in Congress” (Fineman, 16). It seems that as long as the GOP remains largely Pro-Life, the topic of abortion will be slow to fade into irrelevance.

With these events from the past taken into account, we now shift our gaze towards the 2016 Presidential election. A certain Donald J Trump, now President, has had no shortage of headlines and publicity, and most do not speak well of him. His unpolished political practices and his uncensored opinions has given him countless unflattering moments in

the nation’s spotlight. Even with all of this negative attention and affiliation, many of his supporters have remained fiercely loyal. Out of these unyielding members of Trump’s base, many identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. “. . . Headed into the general election, Republican evangelicals were among Trump’s strongest supporters. In [a] June telephone poll, fully 94% of GOP evangelicals say they would vote for Trump over Clinton if the election were held today, as do 88% of white mainline Protestants and 81% of Republican Catholics” (“Churchgoing” 4). However, it is important to note that not all Christians, including Evangelicals, support Trump and his policies. In fact, “. . . Trump was the preferred nominee of just 34% of those who attend religious services weekly, including 15% who had been steady supporters (i.e., had consistently supported him across the three separate surveys in December 2015, March 2016 and April 2016). Two-thirds of regular churchgoing Republicans were not supporting Trump for the GOP nomination even in April” (2).

With this taken into account, what in particular drew the 34% of churchgoers to Trump’s side? This schism can be attributed to many of the very factors we have already touched upon, such as the 1964 election, the struggle over abortion, and the constant fear of becoming irrelevant. Another notable feature of Trump’s campaign was his endless stream of conflicting comments on a multitude of issues, and many of his top evangelical supporters have already admitted this. “[His leading evangelical advocates] admitted that Trump has a morally problematic personal background and omitted mention of his positions on theologically weighted issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom” (9). Even now as President-Elect, he has backtracked on many of the planks for his campaign, while still leaving others unclear. According to ontheissues.org, his perspective on abortion has shifted from “Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop” (August ‘15), to “[We should] defund Planned Parenthood.” (October ‘15). Just four months later, he then stated that “Planned Parenthood does great work on women’s health” (February ‘16) just to turn back less than a month later with the statement “Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it.” (February ’16) (“2016” 1).

One would think that the avoidance of this issues would draw more concern from his churchgoing supporters as a whole, seeing as all three of the aforementioned points are hot topics for politically-aware Christians, yet there is an absence of any large-scale attempt to make Trump reveal his true opinions. There are also the Conservative Evangelicals themselves, a group who have seemingly thrown out the moral standards behind their faith for a man who claims to support them. Trump has riled up his supporters to the point where even the mention of Hillary Clinton’s name during one of his speeches would send the crowd off into a storm of jeers and booing. To any voter outside of the Trump base, these word-activated actions may seem like utter nonsense. However, to the individuals within the pro-Trump sphere, these actions are entirely justified. After all, one of Trump’s favorite go-to topics during speeches and debates is Clinton herself, and all of the bad things she has done as well as the things she will do if she becomes president. Ultimately, “Trump has benefitted indirectly from a strong belief of evangelicals that the two terms of Barack Obama has led the country to the brink of destruction. Obama was bad enough in their eyes; having the Clintons back in the White House would be the end” (7).

Thousands, if not millions, of voters have taken up the Trump card without hesitation, eager to join the call to “Make America Great Again!” Yet even the motto of the campaign itself has its flaws. Namely, it does not clarify who America will be great for, or how it will be made great ‘again’. I general, the statement is made vague, and I believe that this vagueness is quite intentional. The non-specific wording used in this statement allows the listener to impose their own meaning upon the words. To a struggling working-class family, it might appear as a situation to strive for, a place where life is easier for workers and dependents alike. To an Evangelical, it sounds like an affirmation that their faith still holds meaning in America, and that its influence and prestige can someday be re-established. This skillful use of a phrase, as well as his constant manipulation of the emotions of his supporters, his continual use of bold claims to instill shock value, and his constant denial of many of his scandals and miscellaneous quotes, has ultimately led to a dramatic shift in the Conservative world. The scope of the political field has most certainly changed now that the results of the election have named Trump as our next president. Now that he has emerged victorious, the government will surely be affected by the policies he decides to pass, as well as any important decision he makes, for years to come, and he will certainly stamp his name all over the books. After all, he is Donald Trump, and one of his specialties seems to be sticking around longer than it is good for him, just to make sure his name stays relevant.

Evangelical support of Trump has most certainly been caused by lasting effects from religious right efforts in the 60’s, beginning with Barry Goldwater’s run for president in 1964, as well as today’s emphasis on issues that the Conservative movement has been hyper focused on since its early years. Having grown up as a Christian myself, I feel ashamed that these people with near identical beliefs as myself fall so easily for a man such as Trump. However, I feel that they do not go to Trump for his religious beliefs, even if he claims to be devout. Through all of his speeches and all of his debates, Trump’s strength lies in his ability to rile up the crowd with a surge of emotions and bold claims. Perhaps this was one of the things that drew Evangelicals out onto the political scene. In the years before the 1960’s they had kept to themselves, and mostly avoided anything involving politics. By keeping to themselves, their fear and doubt festered and grew, while the world carried on without their words. Once

Barry Goldwater stepped onto the scene, Evangelicals saw a man who was willing to voice their opinions, and who sought to put their long-reserved political beliefs into law. Undoubtedly, when they first began to set foot onto the political landscape, the shock of discovering the political events that had happened without them hit Evangelicals full force. This shock was what most likely jump-started Evangelicals into the full-force frenzy we still see today. Decades upon decades of radical leadership as well as radical voting practices have accumulated into a large, seemingly unfixable mess. The compound fear of obsoleteness and the built up biases against certain groups and views have all compounded into a political mess that will surely take years, if not decades, to correct.

As a nation, we must learn to mend the bonds between Democrats and Republicans, as well as divisions within the parties themselves. We must take the time to truly analyze our political situation, and set our emotions aside in order to look at how certain outcomes will affect our nation as a whole. If groups that feel wronged, excluded, or unheard are willing to sit down and calmly express their opinions in a reasonable way, perhaps more people will be willing to listen to them instead of discarding them as a radical, obnoxious movement. Not only should this compromising be used throughout our political system, but it should also be used amongst our own voters, both with politics as well as everyday issues. Countless times, I have seen people needlessly argue and fight due to the absence of compromise. It is never a bad thing to have differing opinions from those around you, but if one’s tactic of defending that opinion involves irrational acts, we must be able to see why they act in such a way, as well as how we can come to a point of understanding with them. I hope that, in the years to come, an understanding can be reached, and that we are able to move towards a more collaborative future.

Barber, Nigel. “Why Religion Rules American Politics.” Huffington Post, 19 Sep. 2012. Accessed 3 Oct. 2016.

Dallek, Matthew. “The Conservative 1960s.” The Atlantic, Dec. 1995. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.

Fineman, Howard. “Why U.S. Politics Is Obsessed With Abortion.” The Huffington Post, 2 Dec. 2015. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

Kliff, Sarah. “How abortion became a political litmus test.” The Washington Post, 24 Oct. 2011. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

“Republican Party (definition).” Dictionary.com, N.d. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.

Smith, Gregory A. “Churchgoing Republicans, once skeptical of Trump, now support him.” Pew Research Center, 21 July 2016. Accessed 3 Oct. 2016.

Smith, Gregory A. “Exit polls and the evangelical vote: A closer look.” Pew Research Center, 14 Mar. 2016. Accessed 3 Oct. 2016.

Smith, Gregory A. “U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious.” Pew Research Center, 3 Nov. 2015. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

“2016 Presidential Candidates- Donald Trump.” On the Issues, N.d. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

Acknowledgements

We should first like to thank our peers in the Research in Humanities program who were not able to join us on the editorial board but whose contributions have nonetheless been invaluable. We too should like to thank our friends, our families, and the sundry others who have made this journal possible and our lives good. We are deeply indebted to Avra Janz, Vanessa Lin and Elizabeth Beyer, who have worked hours much too late in the design and production of this journal. We are grateful to the many members of the faculty and the administration at NCSSM, including Dr. Todd Roberts, Chancellor; Dr. Katie O’Connor, Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs; Ms. Elizabeth Moose, Dean of Humanities, and the Humanities faculty; the Library staff, including Dr. Robin Boltz, Ms. Stephanie Barnwell, Ms. Melissa Cox, Ms. Lacey Hudspeth, Ms. Sherron Johnson, and Ms. Sarah Stokes. Our deepest appreciation also goes to the NCSSM Foundation for its generous support of our work. Above all, we should like to thank Dr. David Cantrell. His faith in us as people and as scholars, his dedication, not only to this journal, but to each of our individual works, and his continuing efforts to build this program have inspired and encouraged us. This journal would have never been possible without his time and attention.