One of the most nauseating moments after the uncovering of Donald Trump’s depraved comments in 2005 was the parade of religious right luminaries who still backed him. They were so determined to end abortion and marriage equality that they want to turn this country over to a “leader” who has no respect for women whatsoever.
One of the few religious right leaders who had the guts to condemn Trump’s debauchery was professor and theologian Wayne Grudem. This past summer, he wrote a column for Townhall arguing that Trump was a “morally good choice” for president–citing the standard religious right argument that a Republican president is the only way to end abortion, marriage equality, and “judicial activism.”
But after the release of the tape, a chastened Grudem declared that based on the “Access Hollywood” video and Trump’s interviews with Howard Stern, “I cannot commend Trump’s moral character.” He called for Trump to drop out of the race for behavior that was “hateful in God’s eyes.” He admitted that he wasn’t sure whom he would support in November, though he knew he could not back Hillary Clinton. He even asked Townhall to delete his earlier column.
As near as I can determine, it was the most forceful denunciation of Trump on record from a religious right leader. But on Tuesday, Grudem fell down. Since it was now apparent that Trump was not going to pull out, he believed he only had two realistic options–vote for Trump, or vote for a third-party candidate who could “have the clear effect of helping elect Clinton.”
He was thus left to decide based on policies. On that basis, “it isn’t even close” for him–he favored Trump’s policies, and those of the GOP, more than those of Hillary and the Democratic Party. For that reason, he argued that fundies ought to support Trump solely based on his policies.
Grudem implied that he found voting for Trump somewhat more palatable because of Trump’s claim that he was “a changed person from who he was in 2005.” Um, Wayne? If he is a changed man, then how do you justify his weeklong fat-shaming of Alicia Machado? And how do you explain his claim that his earlier trashing of women was merely for “entertainment”?
Apparently in the days since Grudem decided to back Trump, he’s had a lot of discussions with evangelicals who think they’re better off voting for a third-party candidate. He then tried to knock down the objections he’d heard. For instance, he wondered why those whose consciences won’t allow them to vote Trump would be troubled if they knew they were helping advance “the terrible harm” that a Hillary presidency would bring.
To those who claimed that evangelicals had to send a message that candidates like Trump were unacceptable, he asked whether it was really worth handing the country over to someone who was “hostile to Christian values.” In his view, it was better to send a message that “a candidate like Clinton is even more unacceptable.” In the end, he decided that despite Trump’s “deplorable past mistreatment of women,” he had to vote for Trump because “anything I do will help elect Trump or Clinton.”
However, Grudem lost all credibility when he stated that he, like virtually every evangelical leader who still backs Trump, believed that Trump’s behavior was “morally wrong.” But apparently he no longer considers it disqualifying. Why? He tells us by rehashing the reasons he gave for backing Trump earlier this summer.
Under Hillary, he argues, we will see more judicial activism run amok, as well as the prospect of Christians being persecuted. So to prevent that, we must support a candidate who plasters private cell phone numbers on social media, mocks the disabled, condones violence at his rallies, enters business ventures with proven con men, and openly calls for another country to conduct cyberespionage on his opponent? Oh, that’s right–none of that matters because after eight years, we have the chance to get a leader who espouses conservative values. As far as I’m concerned, the minute Grudem started spewing boilerplate religious right agitprop, he sounded like this:
As a charismatic/pentecostal Christian, I’ve gotten a fair amount of flack over the years for wearing my Democratic ties on my sleeve. Well, now I have my strongest answer yet to these objections. No cause is so important that you have to throw basic standards of decency in the dumpster.
If ending abortion and marriage equality requires us to turn over this country to a so-called leader who thinks it’s even remotely acceptable to degrade women, something is very wrong. And if we have to sacrifice respect for women to end abortion and marriage equality, something is very wrong. Both together? After this, I don’t want to hear any lectures about anything from Grudem or any other religious right leader.
