In 2016, Donald Trump bulldozed his way through a crowded field of candidates to become the Republican Party’s choice for president. Not long after it became apparent that he would win the nomination, religious leaders on the Right began to rally around him and his message. Despite his questionable past and present, their zealous allegiance grew stronger as Election Day grew near. Beating the “inevitable” Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, galvanized the GOP ranks unlike never before.
Since taking office, the president’s loyal religious supporters of various faith persuasions have refused to abandon him. In their minds, he isn’t just the Republican choice of the moment; he’s the only one standing between them and the godless socialists on the other side of the political aisle. This motivation spurs them to ignore or entirely excuse behavior that would usually draw condemnation if it came from an opponent. It also brings them to untenable conclusions.
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a fixture on the Right for decades, has long-influenced the faithful who also take an interest in politics. Unsurprisingly, Reed is a passionate Trump supporter. But in a new book, For God and Country, Reed’s fervor goes too far.
As reported by Politico reporter Gabby Orr:
Declaring that Christians have a “moral obligation” to any politician, Democrat or Republican, is a statement that should raise major red flags. This attaches sacred religious duty to the act of voting and propels the candidate in question to another level entirely.
In his first term, President Trump has made some good policy decisions. But these celebrated political maneuvers do not make up for the fact that the president has also made some bad choices, both politically and personally. His behavior on the world’s stage is often fraught with lying, slandering, and ridicule all for the sake of momentary victory. Are these things to be celebrated, or worse, looked over in the pursuit of some final objective? If choosing a politician is a deeply moral act then that selection should take into account the totality of the person’s character.
For too many, the 2016 election became a decision between the “lesser of two evils.” As the years have advanced, this idea has remained. Republicans may appreciate many of the policies that Trump espouses, but can they honestly say his personal qualities are worthy of praise? If this “moral obligation” that Reed mentions is only to policy, then Christians place too much stock in changing culture through legislative action. By wholeheartedly supporting a man who regularly uses the tools of mockery and deceit, they are destroying their own witness all for the sake of fleeting political gain.
It is true that faith should inform our secular choices. However, the two should never be tied together in such a way that refusing to support a particular candidate is akin to rejecting God’s established laws of right and wrong. This applies to both political parties. The men and women who parade before us and attempt to sell themselves in campaign stops and television ads are not the embodiment of virtue. Placing this level of significance on any human is dangerous. There is only one model of moral perfection and his name is not on any ballot.
In these highly partisan times, choosing one side is almost a social requirement. There is nothing wrong with political loyalty but problems arise when that devotion is so tightly wound up in religious obedience that one is unable to separate the two.
Morality is not intrinsically tied to a deeply flawed human being who is seeking the approval of the electorate. Reed, whose life is focused on advancing Christianity, should have already known this.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
