Do MAGA Christians Support Trump Because of Malice or Stupidity—or Something Else?

Recently I learned about the adage called Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

The author of an article who cited those words wrote that he knows “lots of MAGA Christians but his efforts to understand ‘why’ they honor Trump have been futile. Since he has failed to find other reasons, he thinks that perhaps it must, indeed, be either because of malice or stupidity.

However, I don’t agree that it must be one or the other of those two choices. 

As most of you know well, I am not a MAGA Republican supporter. But I think that to attribute the reason that many Christians do support Trump and the MAGA movement as being due either to malice or stupidity is too harsh and inaccurate.

What can we say, then, about why there are so many MAGA Christians who do support Trump? That was an issue that Thinking Friend Jerry Jumper wrote/asked about in an email I received from him last month, and many others of you likely puzzle over that same question.

What could it be other than malice or stupidity? Several other reasons are feasible. and I think that the percentage of people who vote for Trump because of malice or stupidity is markedly smaller than those who did and will vote for Trump for other reasons.

Here are five reasons that might explain why many self-identified Christians have voted for Trump and are likely to do so again this fall, and this list is not exhaustive:

◈ Nostalgia. Many people who remember the 1950s—and still live in rural communities that fondly recall then as the “good old days” with an esteemed Republican President—wish that the U.S. could be like it was then. Thus, they are drawn to the Make America Great Again slogan.

◈ Fear. Closely related to the above is the fear of things changing for the worse. Nostalgic people often fear the loss of cherished values of the past. There is a close connection between religious and political conservatism, and one subsection of my book on fundamentalism is titled “The Fear Factor.”*¹

◈ Consistency. Some voters say they’ve always been (or ever since Reagan have been) a Republican, so naturally they vote for the Republican candidate. This was the sort of response June got from close relatives when she asked why they voted for Trump in 2016.

◈ Disinformation. Many people get misleading/erroneous information from “news” sources such as Fox News, “talk radio,” and publications such as Epoch Times.*² Last week I listened to the former some each evening—and was amazed at how their “news” differed from the “mainstream” media.*³

◈ Misinterpretation. Influential conservative evangelical Christians such as Pastor Robert Jeffress (First Baptist Church, Dallas), Ralph Reed (Faith and Freedom Coalition), and Franklin Graham (Samaritan’s Purse), among many others, have fostered misinterpretation of what the Bible says, or doesn’t say, about abortion, gay rights, etc.

Many people who support Trump for the above reasons may, indeed, lack sufficient understanding and/or information. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. And while such reasons may trigger malicious actions by some, surely those who are MAGA supporters because of malice are few.

So, we who are steadfast opponents of Trump and MAGA Republicans need to beware of fostering arrogant, condescending, and/or belittling attitudes toward people we disagree with politically. Neighbor-love must be extended to them also, and that includes not labeling them as being either malicious or stupid.

Even the leaders of the Christian Right who for decades have sought to change this country into a theocracy, as vividly portrayed in Bad Faith, the new (2024) documentary about “Christian nationalism,” were certainly not stupid nor acting out of malice from their (mistaken) point of view.*⁴

But make no mistake about it: seeking to understand and being friendly toward MAGA Christians definitely doesn’t mean agreeing with their misguided views or minimizing the danger lurking under their unwise support of a wholly unworthy candidate for President.  

_____

*¹ Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), pp. 100~103.

*² Here is the link to an informative, and rather long, article about The Epoch Times.

*³ One evening last week, the top story at 8 p.m. was the campus unrest at Columbia University and elsewhere. Repeatedly they were referred to as “pro-Hamas” activities. The next morning the mainstream websites invariably called that unrest “pro-Palestinian.” That is a marked difference.

*⁴ This film traces the development of the Christian Right in the U.S. from the early 1970s to the present. June and I rented it from Amazon Prime and watched it last Friday evening. We thought it was a helpful film, fairly done but clear in showing the ongoing threat of Christian nationalism that seeks to overthrow USAmerican democracy. I highly recommend the viewing of, and sharing information about, that fine documentary.

 

 

The Appeal of Fundamentalism

Since fundamentalism has been so widespread and influential in the past decades, its popularity must surely be because there are many people who find it appealing. This article, based on the third chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (FuF, which I am in the process of updating) analyzes some of that appeal.

The Religious Appeal

Since Christian fundamentalism claims to uphold, to preserve, and/or to restore the true faith, many believers who are serious about their faith are naturally drawn to the type of Christianity that makes such claims.

Especially for non-creedal Protestant Christians, the Bible is the basis for all faith and action. Thus, any questioning of the veracity of the Bible is seen by many such Christians as a potentially dangerous attack on the faith.

The fundamentalist emphasis on an inerrant Bible, consequently, has great appeal for all who wish to protect Christianity from attacks.

Fundamentalism, which is sometimes little more than traditionalism, is also appealing to many because of its emphasis on a glorious past. Such Christians have been happy to sing “Give Me that Old Time Religion” and have seen fundamentalism as the effort to protect that hallowed tradition from the eroding effects of “modernism.” 

Further, fundamentalism’s affirmation of a type of faith that doesn’t compromise is appealing to some, for compromise is seen as a weakness--and a factor that weakens robust Christianity.

The Psychological Appeal

In addition to the religious appeal, there is also a psychological appeal in fundamentalism--such as is seen in its emphasis on simplicity and certainty.

Others find fundamentalism psychologically appealing because of the pride factor and/or the fear factor.

One of the bestselling novels of 2004 was Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. It was not about religion, but one of the characters in the book declares, “I'm telling you, this is the way modern society works--by the constant creation of fear” (p. 456).

That has been how fundamentalism works also. The fostering of fear has been strong in fundamentalism from its beginning to the present--and the claim of fundamentalist preachers that their message overcomes those fears has been psychologically appealing to many people.

The Political Appeal

From the beginning of Christian fundamentalism a century ago, there has been a strong strain of American patriotism--or even nationalism--in it. Many conservative evangelical leaders have claimed that the United States was a Christian nation from the beginning and that it is up to Christians to see that it stays that way.

While FuF considers fundamentalism mainly up to the year 2005, we have seen even more in the years since then how conservative evangelicals have aligned with the Republican Party.

The inexplicably overwhelming support of DJT by conservative evangelicals show how fundamentalism and politics have become strongly intertwined. The MAGA emphasis of DJT is one of several political appeals to Christian conservatives.

It is quite likely that, on the other hand, conservative Protestant churches are the most appealing form of Christianity to the MAGA enthusiasts who are not Christians.

My March 5 blog article was about Project Blitz, and those political efforts of conservative evangelicals are appealing to those who want to make America great again by restoring it to the type of society it was in the 18th century.

In spite of these various appeals of fundamentalism, though, there are plenty of problems in it that repel many people. Next month I plan to post an article based on “The Problem with Fundamentalism,” the fourth chapter of FuF.

Combatting Islamophobia

Back in May 2013 I wrote about Islamophobia (see this link) and mentioned it again in October 2014 (here). But fear of Muslims, which is basically what Islamophobia is, seems to be stronger now—especially since the San Bernardino shootings—than it was two or three years ago.

It goes without saying that there are radical terrorists in the world. ISIS (ISIL) is a real and ongoing threat to peace and safety in the Near East as well as in the Western world. The extremist activity of some groups or individuals who self-identify as Muslims cannot be denied and should not be ignored.

At the same time, the lumping of all Muslims together and harboring suspicion against, or promoting rejection of, all Muslims because of the terrorist activities of some who say they are Muslims is grossly unfair.

This month the group which meets under the name Vital Conversations discussed the book Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism (2013). The author, Maajid Nawaz (b. 1978), is an ethnic Pakistani born in England. As a teenager he was radicalized, and then a few years later he rejected the Islamism that he had embraced.

Nawaz became the co-founder of, and continues as the leader of, Quilliam, a think tank based in London that seeks to combat Islamism and its extremist activities. (To understand the distinction between Islam and Islamism is crucial.)

In 2011 Nawaz gave a TED talk in Edinburgh with the title “A Global Culture to Fight Extremism.” He is an admirable example of a Muslim fighting valiantly against radical Islamism.

Ahmed el-Sharif was our guest at the January Vital Conversations meeting. Ahmed was born in Sinai and came to the United States in 1979. He is a chemist, and became an American citizen in 1985.

Ahmed is also the founder of the American Muslim Council of Greater Kansas City. There is no question about him being a devout Muslim. But for those who have met him and heard him talk, there is no question about him being a peace-loving, sweet-spirited man.

This evening (Jan. 25) Central Baptist Theological Seminary here in the Kansas City area will be holding its Spring Convocation. Following that, at 7 p.m. veteran professor Richard Olson will lead a discussion of Todd H. Green’s book The Fear of Islam: An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West (2015). 

Green, who is a professor of religion at Luther College in Iowa, has written a very helpful, easy-to-read but scholarly book that I found well worth reading.

To pick up on just one point, Green explains that just referring to “Islamic terrorists” encourages Islamophobia. That is the main reason President Obama has generally not used that term.

Even back in 2008 Rudolph Giuliani’s criticized the Democratic National Convention for not using those words, and the President has been repeatedly castigated for not using that label.

For example, about a year ago CNN reported that Sen. Lindsey Graham had said, “We are in a religious war with radical Islamists. When I hear the President of the United States and his chief spokesperson failing to admit that we’re in a religious war, it really bothers me.”

Last month Donald Trump called for barring all Muslims from entering the United States (at least temporarily). Then early this month, in his first television ad of the presidential election campaign, Trump reiterated his call for a ban on Muslim entry to the U.S.

Trump’s statement about Muslims is clearly an expression of, as well as encouragement of, Islamophobia. And sadly, his strident voice is just one among many.

Scare Tactics

Examples can probably be found in both the left and right wings of American politics. Examples of scare tactics, that is. Or maybe we could call it the politics of fear.

Recently I have found, without really looking, several examples of scare tactics used by political conservatives, vocal right-wingers. Marybeth Hicks is an example. She is an attractive, young (she looks young to me, anyway) author and weekly columnist for the Washington Times.

Ms. Hicks’ new book was published last year. The full title is Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left’s Assault on our Families, Faith, and Freedom. She declares that the political Left’s goal is to topple “the three-legged stool on which our nation rests: religion, the traditional family, and free market capitalism” (p. xi).

While there are perhaps some legitimate concerns expressed by Ms. Hicks, overall she seems to be mainly an alarmist, using scare tactics for political purposes. And it is not hard to figure out that her main political purpose is persuading voters this year to elect conservative candidates rather than liberal ones.

No telling how many other authors/books are similar to Don’t Let the Kids . . . One other such book is Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama (2010), a 500+ page tome by David Limbaugh (b. 1952), the younger brother of Rush Limbaugh. In that book the President is charged with crimes of various and sundry sorts, such as crimes against “the people,” the constitution, and national security.

One of the most vocal journalists/authors who uses scare tactics and highly controversial language to oppose non-conservative politicians and political positions is Ann Coulter (b. 1961). Her newest book is titled Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America (2011).

The books by Hicks and Limbaugh present a very strong polemic against “liberals” in American society, but they not as outrageous as Coulter. And while politicians and their supporters often demonize their opponents, few are as blatant as Coulter.

The title of her first chapter is “The Liberal Mob,” and she begins with these words: “The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic.” Then halfway down the same page she asserts, “The Democratic Party is the party of the mob.”

There are, of course, those who oppose and criticize the Right, and the Republican Party. But I have been unable to find any example of people on the Left who have blatantly used the same sort of scare tactics through recently published books. (There may well be some, but I have tried, and failed, to find any good examples. I would be happy to consider suggestions from readers.)

Everyone has a right to their own political opinion, and they should, of course, vote according to their convictions. But those opinions and convictions should be based on a rational consideration of opposing views, a fair appraisal of the facts at hand, and a concerted effort to find the truth of the matters about with the political candidates and their supporters speak.

Allowing one’s opinion to be formed by people using scare tactics and then voting because of succumbing to such tactics is an affront to true democracy and a threat to the well-being of a nation.

“Conquering Fear”

Harold S. Kushner became widely known after the publication of his best-selling book When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981). Last year, Kushner (b. 1935), an American rabbi aligned with the progressive wing of Conservative Judaism, published Conquering Fear: Living Boldly in an Uncertain World, his twelfth book.

Kushner’s fine book was the topic of discussion yesterday at Vital Conversations, a group that meets once a month at the Antioch Mid-Continent Library. Alan Cohen, Rabbi Emeritus of Beth Shalom, a Conservative Jewish congregation in Kansas City where he served as senior rabbi from 1989-2008, and now Director of Interreligious Affairs at the Jewish Community Relations Bureau, helped facilitate the discussion.

After declaring in the opening chapter that the “eleventh commandment” is “don’t be afraid,” Rabbi Kushner deals with the fears of terrorism, natural disaster, rapid change, the self-destruction of humanity, rejection, growing old, and death. In the final chapter he asserts that “hope and courage are the will of God.”

As Kushner says at the end of the first chapter, “Our goal should never be the denial of fear but the mastery of fear, the refusal to let fear keep us from living fully and happily” (p. 24). Earlier in that chapter he wrote, “Our goal should be to recognize legitimate fears, dismiss exaggerated fears, and not let fear keep us from doing the things we yearn to do” (p. 11). Those are wise words.

The chapter I most identified with was the seventh, on the fear of growing old. Kushner rightfully, I think, states that “the most terrifying aspect of growing old is the increased risk of serious, debilitating illness. We worry that we will lose the ability to do the things that we enjoy as well as the things that define us” (pp. 125-6). I don’t know that I am “terrified” at that prospect, but it is definitely a concern.

Thus, I like the words he attributes to Mel Zuckerman (founder of the fitness resort Canyon Ranch): “My goal is to die young—as late as possible.” That statement was probably adapted from the British anthropologist Ashley Montagu, 1905-99, who wrote in 1956, “The idea is to die young as late as possible.” That is an appealing idea, and a goal I, too, want to embrace.