I'm still reading The Great Revolt. The book by reporter Salena Zito and Republican strategist Brad Todd reports on interviews conducted by the authors in which their interviewees talk about why they voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
The interviewees all come from five Rust Belt states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Four of those states are on at least one of the Great Lakes. All of those states gave the majority of their votes to Barack Obama in 2012, making them Democratic "blue" states back then and also in the more distant past. In 2016, they flipped into the Republican "red" column. The question the authors ask is, "Why?"
Their interviewees cluster into a few towns and counties in the five states in question. Those particular towns and counties themselves flipped for Trump in 2016 and were big factors in helping their states do the same.
The interviewees that I've encountered so far — I'm only about 2/3 of the way through the book — are fairly diverse in age, gender, whether or not they have been to college, whether or not they themselves have lost jobs due to economic woes. Some are evangelical Christians, but many don't put religion first in their lives. All of them are alike, it must be noted, in being white.
Yet none of them seem motivated, first and foremost, by racism or ethnic bias. Nor do any seem to be particularly sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or prone to any of the other sorts of bigotry that Trump's resisters accuse the president of.
Other than their Caucasian race, what seems to unite the interviewees is their moral outlook. An example comes from one of the interviewees:
I ... felt from the first get-go of Obama was that the country’s sliding backwards. Government interference. Just, I almost want to say, a moral decay. This attitude of entitlement for people seemed to be getting worse and worse every year. The direction of the country really has me concerned. It was one of the driving forces for me in this election. Liberty, especially religious liberty, was always under attack. I felt like there was no one to protect people who held traditional values.
That man, Neil Shaffer, who happens to be an evangelical Christian, comes from a rural county in Iowa. He voted for Trump for a potpourri of reasons that are alluded to in that quote. To me, the key phrases are "moral decay" and "traditional values."
On the other hand, Renee Dibble from Ashtabula, Ohio, falls not into the authors' "King Cyrus Christians" category but into their archetypal "Rough Rebounders" group who have fought their way back from some unfortunate circumstance. In particular, Dibble is a breast cancer survivor. Here's part of the authors' discussion of Dibble:
Voting for Trump [say the authors] has changed Dibble. “I don’t see politics the same way anymore. Before, I saw it as this other thing, this thing I wasn’t part of, this club where I didn’t belong. And now I see it as a moral obligation, not just for myself and my family but for my community.”
Dibble is the mother of a large family, some of her and her police-detective husband's children being adopted and non-white. Dibble's mother was Protestant, her father Catholic; she herself does not seem to be religious. But as the quote above suggests, she has a definite moral stance that guided her toward voting for Trump.
I read in The Washington Post and The New York Times countless opinion pieces lambasting Trump and all who support him. All of this anti-Trump opinion is at root, I think, based on moral outrage.
One of my favorite Post op-ed writers is E.J. Dionne, Jr. One of his recent columns is "Christian leaders call out the heresy of Trumpism." Dionne, my fellow Roman Catholic, has it that
This is a testing time for the country as a whole, but the moment presents a particular challenge to the Christian churches.
Trump, after all, won a substantial majority of the vote among white Christians. The battle within Christianity (and not just in the United States) can be defined in many ways. It is at least in part between those who would use faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, too often, race, and those who see it as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency — and, yes, as an invitation to love.
The question “Who is Jesus?” has been debated for two millennia. It is starkly relevant now.
Reading The Great Revolt convinces me that Dionne is positing a false dichotomy here. In today's America, it's not a war between "faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, too often, race" and, on the other hand, "those who see [faith] as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency — and, yes, as an invitation to love." Rather, it's a question of differing moral priorities.
Zito and Todd's interviewees, whether or not they characterize themselves as strong Christians, rank these moral imperatives near the top of their lists:
The interviewees are all "givers," not "takers." Whatever their jobs happen to be, they are "makers," not just users and consumers. And many of them feel disrespected by the various politicians and opinion leaders who have vocally opposed Trump.
Many of the Zito/Todd interviewees had to, in effect, hold their noses as they voted for Trump. Despite Trump's many indiscretions and moral inadequacies, though, they nonetheless felt he understood them and respected them.
Mr. Dionne and most of the other Trump-opposing op-ed writers I like to read are just as conspicuously moral in their outlook as the Zito/Todd interviewees are. Yet, owing to putting a different set of moral imperatives at the top of their respective lists, they fail to understand and respect the seven main categories of voters that Zito and Todd say put Trump in the White House. These anti-Trump opinion writers come from a different "moral universe" than the Zito/Todd interviewees do.
Near the tops of the moral-priorities lists of these opinion leaders come such things as:
Some of these are things that some of the Zito/Todd interviewees might also support. However, few of the interviewees would place them higher than such things as liberty in general and religious liberty in particular; an emphasis on self-reliance; communitarianism that does not intrude into individuals' private lives and beliefs; opposition to "moral decay"; support for "traditional values"; and so forth.
So the things splitting America in two politically today come down to manifesting two different sets of moral priorities. Whenever people do that, they can be equally moral, but they are living in two separate moral universes.
The interviewees all come from five Rust Belt states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Four of those states are on at least one of the Great Lakes. All of those states gave the majority of their votes to Barack Obama in 2012, making them Democratic "blue" states back then and also in the more distant past. In 2016, they flipped into the Republican "red" column. The question the authors ask is, "Why?"
Their interviewees cluster into a few towns and counties in the five states in question. Those particular towns and counties themselves flipped for Trump in 2016 and were big factors in helping their states do the same.
The interviewees that I've encountered so far — I'm only about 2/3 of the way through the book — are fairly diverse in age, gender, whether or not they have been to college, whether or not they themselves have lost jobs due to economic woes. Some are evangelical Christians, but many don't put religion first in their lives. All of them are alike, it must be noted, in being white.
Yet none of them seem motivated, first and foremost, by racism or ethnic bias. Nor do any seem to be particularly sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or prone to any of the other sorts of bigotry that Trump's resisters accuse the president of.
Other than their Caucasian race, what seems to unite the interviewees is their moral outlook. An example comes from one of the interviewees:
I ... felt from the first get-go of Obama was that the country’s sliding backwards. Government interference. Just, I almost want to say, a moral decay. This attitude of entitlement for people seemed to be getting worse and worse every year. The direction of the country really has me concerned. It was one of the driving forces for me in this election. Liberty, especially religious liberty, was always under attack. I felt like there was no one to protect people who held traditional values.
That man, Neil Shaffer, who happens to be an evangelical Christian, comes from a rural county in Iowa. He voted for Trump for a potpourri of reasons that are alluded to in that quote. To me, the key phrases are "moral decay" and "traditional values."
On the other hand, Renee Dibble from Ashtabula, Ohio, falls not into the authors' "King Cyrus Christians" category but into their archetypal "Rough Rebounders" group who have fought their way back from some unfortunate circumstance. In particular, Dibble is a breast cancer survivor. Here's part of the authors' discussion of Dibble:
Voting for Trump [say the authors] has changed Dibble. “I don’t see politics the same way anymore. Before, I saw it as this other thing, this thing I wasn’t part of, this club where I didn’t belong. And now I see it as a moral obligation, not just for myself and my family but for my community.”
Dibble is the mother of a large family, some of her and her police-detective husband's children being adopted and non-white. Dibble's mother was Protestant, her father Catholic; she herself does not seem to be religious. But as the quote above suggests, she has a definite moral stance that guided her toward voting for Trump.
*****
I read in The Washington Post and The New York Times countless opinion pieces lambasting Trump and all who support him. All of this anti-Trump opinion is at root, I think, based on moral outrage.
 |
| E.J. Dionne, Jr. |
This is a testing time for the country as a whole, but the moment presents a particular challenge to the Christian churches.
Trump, after all, won a substantial majority of the vote among white Christians. The battle within Christianity (and not just in the United States) can be defined in many ways. It is at least in part between those who would use faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, too often, race, and those who see it as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency — and, yes, as an invitation to love.
The question “Who is Jesus?” has been debated for two millennia. It is starkly relevant now.
Reading The Great Revolt convinces me that Dionne is positing a false dichotomy here. In today's America, it's not a war between "faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, too often, race" and, on the other hand, "those who see [faith] as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency — and, yes, as an invitation to love." Rather, it's a question of differing moral priorities.
Zito and Todd's interviewees, whether or not they characterize themselves as strong Christians, rank these moral imperatives near the top of their lists:
- Liberty, especially religious liberty
- Self-reliance, as opposed to an attitude of "entitlement" to things unearned
- But also: giving more back to the local community than one has oneself received
The interviewees are all "givers," not "takers." Whatever their jobs happen to be, they are "makers," not just users and consumers. And many of them feel disrespected by the various politicians and opinion leaders who have vocally opposed Trump.
Many of the Zito/Todd interviewees had to, in effect, hold their noses as they voted for Trump. Despite Trump's many indiscretions and moral inadequacies, though, they nonetheless felt he understood them and respected them.
Mr. Dionne and most of the other Trump-opposing op-ed writers I like to read are just as conspicuously moral in their outlook as the Zito/Todd interviewees are. Yet, owing to putting a different set of moral imperatives at the top of their respective lists, they fail to understand and respect the seven main categories of voters that Zito and Todd say put Trump in the White House. These anti-Trump opinion writers come from a different "moral universe" than the Zito/Todd interviewees do.
Near the tops of the moral-priorities lists of these opinion leaders come such things as:
- Racial and ethnic inclusiveness
- Support for women's rights
- Tolerance for abortion
- Acceptance of gay marriage
Some of these are things that some of the Zito/Todd interviewees might also support. However, few of the interviewees would place them higher than such things as liberty in general and religious liberty in particular; an emphasis on self-reliance; communitarianism that does not intrude into individuals' private lives and beliefs; opposition to "moral decay"; support for "traditional values"; and so forth.
So the things splitting America in two politically today come down to manifesting two different sets of moral priorities. Whenever people do that, they can be equally moral, but they are living in two separate moral universes.
No comments:
Post a Comment