Chris: I'm with you on that issue. How in hell can anyone separate private morality from public decision making? Our morals, whatever they consist of, influence all of our decisions. Sure, we can make specific allowances when some greater good is involved. But the greater good must be made very clear, spelled out, and be actually a recognizable Good. Otherwise morality that consists of "whatever feels nice, do it," and can justify just about every criminal act you can think of. What this is, of course, is an example of libertarian rot. After all, so libtars believe, there is no right or wrong, only self-interest. Hence these people undermine civic mindedness, undercut a shared sense of community, and make a shambles of religious faith of any kind. With more and more Evangelicals heeding the libertarian pied piper is it any wonder that we get a Good Christian Housekeeping Seal of Approval for Trump? There are some really good things about libertarianism: (1) Emphasis on free speech and freedom of expression (2) Contrarian philosophy (3) Stress on the virtues of free enterprise (4) Separation from the establishments of the two major parties (5) Anti-authoritarian viewpoint I'm all for these things, whole-heartedly. But everything else, especially its starting point that all men are islands, all men stand alone, is pure hogwash that destroys morality, compromises religious faith, and makes a mess of culture by valorizing every evil known to humanity because, you see, every evil has its champions. And every champion of evil, from Kinsey to Castro Street homosexuals who hate and despise Christians, feels free to say that they aren't harming anyone except bad people who deserve it. This also goes for criminal black people like Al Sharpton, for finance capitalists like Charles Ichan who don't care if whole communities are destroyed if that makes profits for investors, and on and on. Libertarianism, in any "pure" form, is no different than nihilism. We really need to make this clear to one and all. This is tricky. As just noted, there are some really good qualities to libertarianism, and we need to make those qualities our own. But we also need to go to war against everything else. about libertarianism. sincerely, Mencken ------------------------------------- 11/21/2016 9:29:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: >But this year, 72% of white evangelicals now say they believe a candidate can build a kind of moral wall between his private and public life. In a shocking reversal, white evangelicals have gone from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office. Astounding! I am too old-school to make this transformation. From: BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:07 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [RC] Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals
Time Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals _Robert P. Jones_ (http://time.com/author/robert-p-jones/) Nov. 19, 2016 The Trump era has effectively turned white-evangelical political ethics on its head White evangelical Christians set a new high water mark in their support of Republican candidates by giving Donald Trump 81% of their votes, according to the 2016 exit polls. Much _ink has been spilled_ (http:/ /www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-trump-revelation/470559/) explaining just how Trump defeated primary opponents with much stronger Christian credentials, such as Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. And Trump triumphed over Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Methodist who found her political calling in the church-youth group. But perhaps a more important question — one that will have relevance far beyond the Trump Administration — is not why evangelicals supported Trump, but how white evangelicals’ early and steadfast support for Trump has changed them. Perhaps the most dramatic example of the shift in white-evangelical political ethics is the way in which white evangelicals have evaluated the personal character of public officials. In 2011 and again just ahead of the election,_PRRI asked Americans_ (http://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-october-19-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/) whether a political leader who committed an immoral act in his or her private life could nonetheless behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public life. Back in 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand’s insistence on the importance of personal character, only 30% of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement. But this year, 72% of white evangelicals now say they believe a candidate can build a kind of moral wall between his private and public life. In a shocking reversal, white evangelicals have gone from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office. Today, in fact, they are more likely than Americans who claim no religious affiliation at all to say such a moral bifurcation is possible. This about-face is stunning, especially against the backdrop of white evangelicals’ outrage in response to Bill Clinton’s indiscretions in the 1990s. As _Jonathan Merritt documented_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/evangelical-christians-trump-bill-clinton-apology/495224/) , Pat Robertson called Bill Clinton a “debauched, debased, and defamed” politician. But this year, Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network featured multiple friendly interviews with Trump — the candidate who bragged about sexually assaulting women and appeared on the cover of Playboy. And Robertson had this to say directly to Trump: “You inspire us all.” The Trump era has effectively turned white-evangelical political ethics on its head. Rather than standing on principle and letting the chips fall where they may, white evangelicals have now fully embraced a consequentialist ethics that works backward from predetermined political ends, refashioning or even discarding principles as needed to achieve a desired outcome. The key to understanding this reversal is grasping the sense of crisis felt by white evangelical Protestants today. While white evangelicals have always been prone to apocalyptic thinking, their current concerns about the waning power of their cultural world is well-founded. As I document in my recent book, _The End of White Christian America_ (https://smile.amazon.com/End-White-Christian-America/dp/1501122290/) , this is the first presidential election in which white Christians find themselves clearly in the demographic minority: 43% today, down from 54% in 2008 and right at the tipping point in 2012. It’s also the first election in which white evangelicals find themselves in the clear minority on one of their signature issues: opposition to same-sex marriage. In 2008, only 40% of the country supported same-sex marriage, and the country had just crossed into clear majority support in 2012. Today same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and roughly 6 in 10 Americans support it. The moral majority they are no longer. Amid this identity crisis, fears about cultural change and nostalgia for a lost era — bound together with the ties of partisan identity — combined to overwhelm the once confident logic of moral values. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore, an early and consistent critic of Trump, put it starkly. White evangelicals have, _he argued_ (https://baptistnews.com/article/russell-moore-religious-right-must-change-or-die/) , simply adopted “ a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it.” Like Washington’s Old Post Office and other historical landmarks reconstructed under the Trump brand, it is tempting to argue that Trump has single-handedly remodeled the political ethics of white evangelical Protestants, remaking it in his own image. But this analysis gives Trump too much credit. A closer look at long-term white-evangelical voting patterns suggests that Trump’s candidacy has laid bare dynamics that have been operating under the surface for decades, dynamics that were put in motion when white evangelicals unevenly yoked themselves to the party of Reagan in reaction to the civil rights movement in the 1980s. More than a few white evangelical leaders and pastors are wringing their hands and rending their garments over the tribal support white evangelicals have rendered to the Republican nominee for President. But if these leaders expect to make any headway in recovering a political ethic based on moral values — one that is capable of speaking truth to party and President — they will need to begin much farther back than Trump. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
