aside Best Defense Of Why 80% Of Evangelicals Supported Donald Trump’s Presidency By SE Cupp

Image result for photos of evangelicals working with Trump in the White House

While I have been critical about the 80% of Evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump to become president as they have given the president a “mulligan” for his extra-marital affair while his wife Melania was pregnant, his racist leanings, his denial of climate change science, as well as all of his other substantial character flaws, the author SE Cupp gives as good an explanation as I’ve seen anywhere as to why mostly White Evangelicals voted for President Trump, and continue to support him.

I do think her reasoning is somewhat flawed and self- serving, but it at least makes sense. I am sharing this because it is my belief that it is helpful to have some real understanding of why peoples act a certain way in order to be able to present a counter debate as the opportunity arises.

Image result for photos of evangelicals working with Trump in the White House

Here is the rest of the story…  

On January 24. 2018,  S. E. Cupp of the New York Daily News penned the following op-ed piece, “Why evangelicals stand by Trump: Those calling out the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives ignore the scars of recent history”


“It was one of President Trump’s most supportive voting blocs in 2016: 80% of white evangelicals voted for him, according to exit polls. Just 16% voted for Hillary Clinton.”

“Many on the left and in the media were shocked then by Trump’s evangelical support, and they are shocked now, after some faith leaders have brushed off credible new allegations that the President had an extramarital affair with a porn star years ago, then paid her to stay silent.”

Image result for photos of evangelicals working with Trump in the White House

“Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told Politico, “We kind of gave him — ‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here.’ ” Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham, told CNN that Trump is a “changed person.” He rationalized, “These alleged affairs, they’re alleged with Trump, didn’t happen while he was in office.”

“There are two ways to view this: Either evangelicals like Perkins are rank hypocrites or, in the spirit of their faith, are simply very, very forgiving.”

“Many lean toward the former interpretation, and I get the temptation.”

“But it willfully leaves out a lot of recent history. As the left and liberal media try to “figure out” Christian America during this latest, complicated moment, it’s instructive to understand where they’ve recently been.”

Image result for photo of tony perkins

“Two years into Barack Obama’s first term, I wrote a book on the liberal war on Christianity. When “Losing Our Religion” came out, folks on the right got it immediately. “Of course the left is attacking Christians,” was the general refrain.”

“Many on the left, however, were incredulous. One far-left radio host had me on to tell me he had no plans to read the book, but that my premise was absurd on its face. Christianity’s the biggest religion in the country; it can’t possibly be an oppressed class, they insisted.”

“OK, ask one — just one — evangelical Christian why they voted for Trump.”

Perkins spelled it out. Evangelical Christians, he says, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.”

Image result for photos of evangelicals working with Trump in the White House

“It wasn’t just Obama’s condescension toward the faithful, who he famously said “cling to guns and religion” when angry or scared. It was eight years of policies that trampled on their religious values, from expanded abortion rights and decreased regulation, even in the face of horrific cases like Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s, to continued efforts to chip away at religious employers’ rights.

It was a smugness from the liberal media, which talked about Christian America as if it were a vestigial organ of some extinct, diseased dinosaur.”

“Liberal television hosts mocked Sarah Palin for banal things like praying, and reporters wrote that her faith — Pentecostalism — was fanatical, kooky and bigoted. Liberal networks and newsrooms were windowless cocoons of secularism that only deigned to cover Christianity to dismiss its relevance or spotlight its perceived backwardness.”

Image result for photos of evangelicals working with Trump in the White House

“And it was decades of concerted cultural elitism that marginalized Christians as not cool enough to cater to. Movies like “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Chronicles of Narnia” were blockbuster hits in spite of dismissive Hollywood film critics who refused to believe there were enough Christians to go see them. Celebrities called them fanatics; comedians made fun of them.”

“Many evangelicals I talk to say they grew tired of turning the other cheek. In Trump, they finally found someone who was willing to voice the anger and resentment they had been holding in.”

“They could overlook his personal foibles — after all, let he who is without sin cast the first stone — and his evangelical illiteracy, in exchange for getting someone who would tell off all their past tormentors.”

“It’s worth noting, there’s also Trump’s record. From tapping Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court to acknowledging Jerusalem is the capital of Israel to following through on his pro-life rhetoric, the President has delivered on a number of promises he made to evangelicals. But that’s not why they voted for him.”

“So while the willingness to forgive and even defend Trump’s alleged sins seems anathema to many, the fact is evangelicals, like many Trump voters, had good reason to pull the lever for him — and now to stand by him.”


  1. Well I’m not quite sure what you mean that they had every right and good reason to stand by him. They cannot claim to be “Christians” and not follow the words of Christ. If they say that they “got tired of turning the other cheek” and were “angry” because the government was not catering to their self righteous judgement of other American citizens then they were clearly not acting as “Christians” and as such cannot claim to be champions for Christ and his word. They can most certainly do whatever they deem necessary to further their cause as a citizen but to bring Christ into it is just blasphemy and to fool their followers with these Anti Christian beliefs is even worse

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dear Doubledragon61,

      The words that you refer to, belong to the author S E Cupp who published her opinion piece with the intent to explain to someone like me who is not an Evangelical, why there are 80% of White Evangelicals who had supported Donald Trump in his quest to be president and why they would continue to back him.

      At no point do I feel that these Evangelicals are doing the right thing. But, it is helpful to know their perspective. This information is useful to me to know because it tells me that they are not reachable by persuasion. to change their minds.

      The president’s base consists of the very wealthy, business executives, Orthodox right wing peoples of the Jewish faith, 80% of White Evangelicals, White Supremacists’ group members, anti-immigration and 2nd amendment zealots and the rural working Joe voters.

      Of the above groups of peoples, it will be the working average Americans who would possibly be persuadable to change allegiances as they are the one group that the president has not been true to his word.

      Hugs, Gronda


  2. I write this having been as it were both ‘sinner’ and ‘sinned’ against, or to put it another way, ‘on both sides on the situation’
    This illustrates what happens when conversation breaks down or is felt to have broken down.
    Folk in their anger will not vote for someone because of that person’s principals but will vote for them purely to get back at the group they feel are being unfair to them. It is an emotional reaction which of course is typically human.
    This of course leave both sides feeling aggrieved by the other, and the next step sadly becomes an exercise in finds way to deride or abuse; in this escalation there will always be those who wish to ‘play to the audience’ for their own ego trips and to profit (literally).
    It is a very difficult cycle to break once it starts, particularly as there is ‘a circling of the wagons’ effect.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Roger,

      Your point is well taken as it is true. The Evangelicals feel aggrieved and are susceptible to politicians who are wiling to cater to them. People not understanding that their backing of the president is based on emotion which means a logical argument, for example, as to their not holding the president accountable for his racist views, will fall on deaf ears.

      For me, it is useful to know this, and more importantly, it is useful for the Democratic party to understand this.

      Hugs, Gronda.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Very important indeed Gronda.
        In my 40+ years in public service the hardest lesson to learn was to bite the tongue, listen, and then try to convince (even if you did feel you want to swat them over the head with their file).
        The Democrats have an open door if they work on the message and cut back on the argumentative retorts.
        It won’t be easy, it never is and there will need to be padded wall for democratic canvassers to bump their heads against after having had some conversations!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dear USFman,

      I couldn’t agree more. I have had a hard time coming to terms as to how they, as self described Christians could continue to back the president despite his very obvious character flaws.

      I happen to think they are flat wrong in what they are doing but at least SE Cupp’s explanation makes sense out of why they are acting in the way that they do.

      Hugs, Gronda


Comments are closed.