Response to “Why Evangelicals Should Oppose Trump and Vote
Democrat,” an article by Robb Ryerse dated January 31, 2020, by Wade Rutland
Howell Jr. Ph. D.
In this sort article Robb Ryerse claims that Republicans,
and more specifically Evangelical Christians, should abandon their party and
support democrats to defeat President Trump. The article itself is short and I encourage
anyone who has not read it to do so. There is no heavy lifting to be done, it
is simply an appeal to elect Democrats over Republicans because Trump is the devil.
I am only partially joking with that summary.
As best I can determine Mr. Ryerse provides about six
reasons for Evangelicals to redirect support from Trump and Republicans this
year. He also notes he only needs about five percent of Evangelicals to ensure
Trump does not win. By the way, he also notes that he works with a group called
Vote Common Good against Republicans. I also visited this group’s website and
read what they are about. The group seems to think Democrats don’t know how to
speak to religious people effectively and desire to have religious people agree
that they should vote for the common good, rather than their own self interests.
What the common good is, however, is not explicitly stated. So, while the
website does not tell us what the common good is, it does tell us that voting
for democrats is how we get it. It is interesting that Mr. Ryerse argues people
should not blindly support Trump and Republicans but should vote for “common
good” which means voting for Democrats, apparently without regard for who the
candidate is, or as others might call this, to vote blindly for Democrats. My
Ryerse himself, in his article, defines the common good as “getting Trump and
his enablers out of office.”
What about those six reasons to redirect support away from
Trump. I will list them and address them now. First, Trump does not believe
what Evangelicals believe (about abortion) and only supports it publicly so
that Evangelicals will vote for him. I am not sure why this is a problem.
Voters may prefer someone who believes as they do on issues (I certainly would).
The next best situation would be to have someone who will promote policy that
aligns with issues of the voters even though they might not agree with it personally
(what Mr. Ryerse accuses Trump of this). It would be much worse have someone
who promotes policies contrary to the voter’s ideals, whether they say they
agree with you or not. Trump’s inner convictions about abortion (for or
against) are greatly overshadowed by the public actions he has taken. If, as Evangelicals,
we believe that the common good includes (at least in part) opposition to
acceptance or normalization of abortion, then I fail to find Mr. Ryerse’s reason
to redirect support from Trump to a Democrat convincing. Especially since
Democratic candidates actively seek to promote the acceptance and normalization
of abortion.
Second, the common good is advanced by defeating Trump
and Republicans. I suppose this claim must be self evident, because Mr. Ryerse
simply asserts this claim without argument. I suppose I must be blinded to the clear
evidence of Trump’s malice and the Republicans who are falling all over themselves
to do whatever the president wants. Mr. Ryerse asserts that the President has
disdain for decency, disrespect toward right and wrong, and disregard for the vulnerable
(his alliteration shows his Seminary Training is paying off). Unfortunately,
Mr. Ryerse did not provide me with examples detailing the issues, so I will
have to await this clear evidence to show up so I can evaluate it. I could just
take him at his word, he is a Pastor after all. The only problem with that is
that I am also a Pastor and have been serving in Churches for almost twenty
years. I am afraid I will have to wait for Mr. Ryerse or others to provide
evidence and argument that will show me that my own assessment of the public
record is in need of amendment.
Third, supporting President Trump because of his
position on abortion is a deal with the devil. Evidence offered for this position
is that Evangelical support of Refugee resettlement programs has shifted among
Evangelicals and he ties this to allegiance to The President. The question we
have to ask about Evangelical support for Refugee resettlement is why the
shift. Mr. Ryerse infers the reason as related to supporting the president. Could
it be that greater examination of the program has caused people to reevaluate their
positions? If so, that would be similar to what Mr. Ryerse is asking Republicans
to do. I do not know why Evangelical support for a particular program has
shifted, or even that it has shifted, but I am confident it is not because
Evangelicals were told to change their position
of the President will no longer hold to a pro-life public policy. If it was, I
never got the memo.
Forth, a procedural vote in the Senate impeachment trial
of President Trump against calling witnesses is the exaltation of the Executive
branch over the Legislative branch. Here we have our first argument. Mr. Ryerse
claims the following: either Republican Senators vote to allow witnesses or they
abandon their responsibility as a co-equal branch of government. It is nice to
read an argument on page five of six of my printout of Mr. Ryerse’s article. Unfortunately,
this argument, which is presented as a constructive dilemma, turns out to be a
false dilemma. A third alternative to the motivation for the vote of Republican
Senators is that they believed that the impeachment charges, even if true, were
not sufficient to remove a president. Maybe they thought what Trump was accused
of was not wrong, or that the entire impeachment from the house was only
political, or that what President Trump did was wrong but did not rise to the
level of impeachment (think back to the Clinton impeachment), or that there may
have been something there but that the House of Representatives should have
done a more thorough job with fact finding before sending the articles to the
Senate. I just provided four other possible reasons (I am sure there are many
more also) which makes Mr. Ryerse’s (with only two choices) dilemma a false one.
Fifth, Evangelical support to President Trump is blind
and abandons previously held values. Instead of another argument, with this
point we only get another assertion. But we can ask the question, do Evangelicals
support the President blindly? I don’t think so. Do they support him robustly? Yes,
I think they do. Do Evangelicals think the President can do no wrong? No,
certainly not. As an Evangelical, a Pastor, a Philosopher and Theologian, I
believe the president is no moral exemplar, but he was far better (on the whole) than the alternative in 2016. I suspect that he will be far better than the 2020 alternative also.
Sixth, Republicans should vote for the Democrats
(just this one time) for the greater good. Here we get a final argument. Mr. Ryerse
writes Republicans should support Democrat candidates this election “Because a
deal with the Democrats is better than a deal with the devil.” I actually agree
that a deal with the Democrats would be better than a deal with the devil. I disagree
that Trump is the devil. In this final sentence of the article Mr. Ryerse steps
into the open and states outright what the tone of the article hinted. Mr. Ryerse
does not view the President and the members of the Republican party as good faith
actors who disagree with him. He sees them as enemies of the good. While this
can be an effective rhetorical tactic, it commits another logical fallacy. It
is an ad hominem attack. Here we see that Mr. Ryerse thinks to highly (or
lowly) of the President. President Trump is a man, not a demon or supernatural entity
of evil. He is a fallen human, who needs salvation only found in Jesus Christ,
just like every other human.
A vote to re-elect President Trump is not a vote for Satan. Votes
for Republican candidates in other races are not votes for the hordes of hell. Likewise,
votes for the Democratic candidates are not votes for Satan and the hordes of
hell either. This is not to say that the votes are not consequential, because
they are.
I believe that the Democrats believe that what they support
is good for our country. I do not question their patriotism. I simply cannot
understand how they could possibly think what they are proposing would be good
for the USA, Americans, or the world. I can, however, see how the agenda pushed
by Democrats candidates is good for Democrat candidates.
I suppose Mr. Ryerse would simply see me as a blind follower
of President Trump. Just another Evangelical who can’t see past myself to the “greater
good” which he has such a great apprehension of. Maybe that is it. Maybe my
instance on logic, argument, evidence, and public policies that do not further consolidate
power in the hands of the few means I can’t see this greater good he is pointing
to. Maybe if he is so inclined, he can spit in some clay and rub it in my eyes
like Jesus did in John 9:6, then maybe I will be able see truth of his words. Till
then, I guess I will just go on until I can be healed of my blindness.
