Skip to main content

Crazy Love

In the course of several recent bike rides through various Michigan suburbs, I’ve now passed at least two lawn signs that read:

“God loves you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Surprised that I’d never seen this message before, it seemed at first a generous sentiment, even for those, like myself, not religiously inclined.

Unconditional love? Who wouldn’t want that? And the idea that it happens by default, with no apparent obligation or action required on my part, gives it a certain something-for-nothing appeal.

But as I thought it through, I realized something more insidious might be at work here. Taken to its logical conclusion, this could be interpreted as a sort of moral waiver. No matter how you behave — no matter how cruel, greedy, bigoted, or violent you are — you’re off the hook. If God is going to love you anyway — and if there’s nothing you can do to stop it — you’re free to be just as vile as your nature allows. He’s giving you a pass.

And with the word “vile” in mind, my thoughts turned, quite naturally, to Donald Trump. And I realized that what I might have been looking at was the lawn sign of an evangelical Trump voter. I could be wrong, I have no evidence. But I like the hypothesis.

So assuming I’m correct, what is that sign trying to say? Is it a rationale for Trump? A way of excusing his wretched excesses? Are they saying that God loves him unconditionally, even as he openly shreds the values they claim to hold sacred?

And are they not also, perhaps, excusing themselves? Not just for abiding this monster, but for celebrating him? For turning their faith inside out to accommodate him? For tying their theology in knots to somehow justify their own mind-bending hypocrisy?

Of all the constituencies Trump appeals to, evangelicals have been the hardest to figure. Their ability to reconcile their professed beliefs with his out-front, in-your-face moral depravity is something I simply cannot get my brain around. Hence all my question marks — I have no answers.

This is, after all, a guy who never met a commandment he wouldn’t break. All ten — including, arguably, thou shalt not kill — have been under severe stress since he took office. Yet the submissiveness of evangelicals just grows stronger. They follow Trump, dare I say, religiously.

This didn’t start with Trump. The mutual flirtation of evangelicals with the far right has been going on for decades, and their destinies have grown increasingly intertwined. Trump is the culmination of that flirtation, but not its origin.

Republicans have been working this angle for a long time. To the billionaires who own the party, evangelicals are rubes — religious nuts from the sticks, easily manipulated, sure to vote for any numbskull who can quote the Bible. They’ve been running the same con forever. They use bought-and-paid-for celebrity preachers — the Falwells, Pat Robertson, etc. — to promote an agenda that’s reliably white, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic, without saying any of that stuff aloud. All behind a thin veneer of moral rectitude.

Part of the con is that this agenda never gets delivered on. Republicans have consistently paid lip service to the priorities of so-called social conservatives, without actually acting on anything beyond their traditional big business priorities: deregulation and tax cuts. 

So while evangelicals were waiting decades to see Roe v. Wade overturned, what they got instead was a black president and gay marriage.

But in 2016, they finally caught on. Trump was just the guy to tell the Republican establishment to shove it. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio never saw it coming. Trump swept aside every Republican in his path, and evangelicals were in the thick of it. 

Despite being the most religiously challenged figure they could conjure in their worst nightmares, they embraced Trump completely. Seeing him as their best bet to get what they’d been promised for so long, they were now happy to trade Republican lies for Trump lies. Trump lies were bigger, bolder, far more plentiful, and right out there in the open. He gave them permission to channel their inner racist, and they loved him for it.

Of course, with Trump, the con is never over. He promised them he’d stick it to the fat cats, but instead he gave fat cats a $2 trillion tax break. He promised them he’d end immigration, but instead he locked children in cages, which must be hard to square with Jesus’ teachings. He promised them he’d stop China from getting away with whatever, in his warped imagination, they were getting away with, but instead he started an absurd trade war that has hurt farmers — many of whom are evangelicals — far more than China.

So even before the pandemic, Trump was arguably making the lives of evangelicals significantly worse. Now he has nothing to offer them, short of maniacally prying open their churches and inviting them to die. Which underscores his contempt for them.

Because to him, they’re still rubes, even as he shamelessly panders to their worst instincts. And they continue to worship him.

I guess there’s nothing he can do about it.


Berkley MI

Tuesday 06/02/20

Comments

  1. I feel the same way thinking evangelicals and very religious Christians/Catholics support Trump. Trump totally manipulates religious following for his political gains... and yesterday he had protesters tear gassed with rubber bullets just so he could take a creepy picture at St. John's church in DC. >:(

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure if this will show. All of a sudden the original user name I had showed up. Once upon a time, I must have come up with it. No memory of that.

    ANYWAY, about that parting of the blue sea with tear gas bursting in air, brandishing a bible like a weapon. I'll bet it's the first time he's ever touched one.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I